The Rest of the GOP Race

Text of a letter I sent to TNR:

Good point that if McCain and Huckabee have more debates (without R. Paul) then it's basically free advertising.

Now that the GOP field has settled, it'll make it easier for Clinton/Obama to attack a specific enemy instead of each other. However, is there any way that McCain's candidacy helps Hillary? McCain has oodles more "experience," has better Commander in Chief cred, and will actively enjoy making her cry.

Considering she voted for the war (and hasn't recanted), McCain can take credit for the war's phantom successes and she can't attack him about the failures.

Backpost finished 2009-12-23.

Huckabee and the GOP Establishment

A letter I sent to Prof. Kleiman, in response to his question "Will the neo-cons and money-cons swallow Huckabee?":

Until I saw the Kristol column, I thought they wouldn't. Over the past few days I've heard from my partisan Republicans friends who hate Huckabee and said that if it came down to the two of them in November, they would vote for Hillary over Huck. Yeah, it's bluster, but that's pretty mean.

Who do they support? It used to be Giuliani but recently they think he's imploding fast over his general weirdness. Thus they are now putting their ultimate hopes on John McCain. A few weeks ago they'd have painted McCain as a traitor, but now they realize that he's pretty conservative on most issues and is the most hawkish after Rudy, and that's ultimately what they care about.

Basically, I have been terribly worried about a Huckabee candidacy and I thought that there wasn't one voting bloc in the GOP that was both larger and more fervent than the Evangelical-Christianist base. All the other groups have been betrayed in one way or another but Bush has been disastrously consistent with his entanglement with the Christian base. And they want Huckabee. So who can rally enough anti-Christian ire in the GOP base? The answer are the "security-cons" - those who vote to protect America from the screaming Arab hordes hell-bent on conquering America and making our women wear burkas.

Kristol seems to be less concerned with that and more about the ultimate prize (as he indicates early on in his column): the Supreme Court. And just like Bush, if they get the right handlers around Huckabee, they can maybe control him. The question I suspect you and I are asking is whether they think it'll be easier to destroy him in the primaries or see if he can be successfully controlled.

Because Huck is not a pure soul (he's a disgraceful liar, as we've seen in his denials about Wayne Dumond and his penchant for accepting expensive gifts) there's a good chance that he will hold out a for-sale sign soon. If he doesn't, then the GOP establishment will crucify him (ugh) and rally behind whoever is number 2 at that point (Romney, McCain or even Thompson who miraculously got #3 in Iowa and #2 in Wyoming).

Kristol and the WSJ just sent out a message to him that they will be willing to buy if he's willing to sell. What we need to look for, those of us with eyes to see detail, are signs that Huckabee is holding out that for-sale sign.

What would the sign look like? Maybe hiring a few of the "right" consultants; e.g. once Giuliani implodes once and for all, will his foreign policy team go bodily to McCain or will one or two go to Huck.

P.S. When Hillary was the presumptive (anointed) nominee, the GOP machine wanted a candidate who would be able to beat her soundly. Hence Rudy's appeal (and McCain, Romney etc). However Obama is rising and now looks strong enough to be the Democratic candidate... and he will beat the stuffing out of every one in the GOP field. With the possible exception of Huckabee. Put simpler: if Rudy was the Anti-Hillary, Huckabee may be the only one who can be an anti-Obama, and that's why Kristol/WSJ may end up supporting him.

Or at least that's why Kristol etc is sending out feelers - if Obama is nominated, then the GOP may feel they need Huckabee to have a fighting chance (or at pull a Goldwater and energize their only remaining solid base). However if Hillary pulls it off and beats Obama then they'll try to crush Huckabee to avoid a loss for what will be a decent shot at winning.

Backpost finished 2009-12-14. Note that I was correct - except Kristol found someone even more Christ-y, and more malleable, than Huck: Palin.

Counter-Predictions for TPM

This is the body of a letter I sent to the TPM regarding their predictions for the Iowa/New Hampshire and beyond: "How We See it":

In general, I believe that your prediction of the potential nominees is on the mark. Two caveats, one for each prediction:

1. Democrats - I don't think you can rule out Obama even if Hillary gets #1 in Iowa and New Hampshire for two reasons:

(a) Obama has a lot of money- that gives him the ability to fight loud for a long time (unlike Edwards in '04 who kept running after it was clear that Kerry had clinched it, but it was largely a futile gesture).

(b) Hillary's negatives are pretty high. I think that Kerry was able to lock up the nom in '04 because most Democrats accepted the expertise of the early primary voters, assuming that since all the non-screaming candidates (e.g. Kerry, Edwards, Clark) were all major unknowns that they felt "if the early voters accepted one of them then, OK, let's just take that one." I heard this from my parents who accepted at face value Kerry's front-running status (and the false-positive crossover appeal of his military record) even though I, as a political junkie, felt that he was the kiss of death.

I don't think there'll be a front-runner repeat of 04 with Hillary because we KNOW that woman very very well. Even if she wins the first three contests (IA, NH, SC), I assume that all that will do is force Edwards to leave the race. Edwards is so far splitting the anti-Hillary vote, and if he drops he'll leave a loud Obama to provide a valid alternative contrast to Hillary. And when the field clears between these two well-funded choices, I think that Obama will get much more popular.

I think a model for Hillary vs. Obama could be 1984's Mondale vs. Hart -- if Mondale had more money, was more hated, and actually had no governing experience and if Hart was smarter, had more substance, and a lot more money. I was only 12 at that election, but in looking at the data I'm impressed at how many states Hart managed to win.

2. Republicans - Huckabee is not going to be easy to eliminate.

To consolidate a blog post I wrote on this, I think that Romney's support is very soft. He is the default candidate because all the other candidates are sick jokes and because Mitt's got looks, money, and clean living. But he's also a laughable phony. What scares me about Huckabee is that even though he has very little money and little staff, he is a very impressive Evangelical poster child and that gives him a built-in power base. Four words: "Passion of the Christ" - that movie made money because of the massive outpouring of Evangelicals who were probably not compelled by Madison Avenue but because thousands of them heard about it in church every Sunday. I think this power-base and free communication network can explain Huck's explosive rise in Iowa and South Carolina and also how he's tied with Giuliani nationally. Add real money and a real staff to Huckabee and I think he'll be a Goldwater on Christ.

While Huck has a dark side (a temper, the gifts in office, his compulsion to cover up and lie) and a dumb side (much of his policy ideas), I would posit that the scandals won't bother Evangelicals. Why? Three more words: "George Dubya Bush." How many scandals did Dubya accrue? His dark side is darker than Huck and his dumb side deeper. But the Evangelicals gave him a pass because (a) he was Born Again, and (b) every time he committed a sin against The Lord or against The Human Race, he'd just accept Jesus again and he'd be as right as rain. And if the Evangelicals accepted that with the Bush, then they'll be even more generous with Huckabee. Because while Bush is reborn, Huck is a freakin' preacher!

For example, Huck's biggest scandal (so far) is freeing Dumond, yet I believe the Evangelicals will just look at it as an act of Christian charity and move on. Seriously. And I don't think the Evangelicals will care that he's got liberal-ish views about spending government money to help the poor because that also fits into the preacher paradigm.

The only way I think Huck is knocked out is if somehow the fervid support he'll get from the Evangelical base is statistically too small to offset the GOP's anti-Evangelical voters. Given the stripping away of almost every group from the GOP over this scorched earth years of Bush-Cheney, I don't think there's enough anti-Evangelicals to stop Huck.

2009 Update: Hey, these predictions held up pretty well. Yay me.

Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

Why do the money-cons hate Huckabee?

An interchange between me and Prof. Kleiman of The Reality Based Community. What makes him classy is that he responds to his emails (unlike TPM or Sullivan):

Dear Dr. Kleiman,

I like the list of theories you give for why the money-cons, and the GOP DC establishment, hate Huckabee. I believe that the class-consciousness, and the Northern Elite snobbery, against Huckabee also informed the deep irrational hatred directed at Huckabee's predecessor: William Jefferson "Bubba" Clinton. Hillary is hated on her own grounds (and I am with you on all those reasons as well), but she's one of the establishment. I said it back during the 90s that "Bubba" was hated by the Press and by the GOP because he was perceived as poor white trash with delusions of grandeur. And the same thing is playing out with Huckabee.

He responded, in part, with this:

I'm sure you're right, but Fred Thompson is also pretty "trashy," and they have no objection to him. Indeed, he's probably their favorite.

Then my re-response:

I assume it's because "Hollywood" Fred Thompson was a Senator and a lobbyist. No matter how much cow-poo was on his boots when he walked into Congress, that stuff disappears pretty quickly. Governers, as you well know, are considered provincial and un-"experienced" when it comes to foreign policy. Some states can probably get away from that image (e.g. anyone from the coasts), but completely land-bound Hillbilly country?

Also, another difference between Thompson and Huckabee is the big cultural difference between Arkansas and Tennessee. I grew up both in upstate New York and in Memphis, Tennessee and TN is far more 'urbane' (especially Memphis) than the surrounding area.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-14.

GOP: It now looks like Romney

While there may be no real GOP front-runner, it's becoming more of Romney's game now. Giuliani, while a strong candidate because of his 9-11 halo, has some insane skeletons in his closet. The most recent is Shag-Gate (TPM has done great work on this) wherein Rudy spent millions of my tax money to have the police walk his then mistress' dog. While this is run-of-the-mill New York City graft, that doesn't play well outside the cynical world of Nu-yawk. The scandals (and there are now quite a lot) plus his disastrous personal life (which echo each other) plus his liberal policies on abortion, guns, immigrants and Da Gays, may be enough to sink Giuliani for good.

And on Tuesday Romney got a crucial endorsement by National Review. That endorsement, plus his successful speech the other night defending his right to be a religious whackjob, has established him as the candidate of the GOP establishment. Combine that with his money, and with his movie-star looks and persona, and I think he's the guy. Unless he makes some spectacular gaffe, his money and acceptance by the GOP machine politics should get him the nomination.

While I don't discount Huckabee's success in Iowa is impressive, Huck doesn't have the money, the support of local GOP machine politicians, the policy-knowledge, or the staff to make it much farther. Being a media darling is great, being a populist is great, but it's hard to defeat the candidate of The Money and The Machine (note, this is why I still haven't ruled out Hillary... but, like above, her current wounds are all self-inflicted and gaffes can kill anybody).

If it is Romney, then I am worried about who his Veep pick would be. TNR has said a few times now that the rest of the candidtaes hate him and won't work with him. Will that matter if he offers them the VP slot?

I believe Romney will choose a rock-ribbed conservative as his running mate; I believe it will be Rick Santorum. By doing that, even when Romney flops over to the center-left in general election (which he is guaranteed to do), he can thus pander his true centist bona-fides while winking at the cultural conservatives with Santorum.